NIW Bearings
remandedMAY192025_03B52032025-05-19 · appeal

This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.

The Petitioner, a research scientist, proposed an endeavor described in personal statements, though the specific field and nature of the work are not detailed in this decision.

Field: unspecified research science · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · ignored
  • citations publications · ignored
  • other · ignored

This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds

Notable

This is a procedural remand where the AAO did not evaluate the merits of any Dhanasar prong; instead it found SCOPS' denial decision itself deficient for being conclusory and failing to address submitted evidence (personal statements, an independent advisory opinion letter, industry articles, publications, citation record). The AAO expressly declined to opine on the ultimate resolution of the case and remanded for a new, more fully explained decision.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • Flores v. Garland

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

SCOPS issued conclusory denial without addressing submitted evidence (personal statements, advisory letter, articles, publications) across all three Dhanasar prongs, violating explanation requirements.

Transferable lesson

Adjudicators must specifically engage submitted evidence under each Dhanasar prong; conclusory denials lacking analysis will be remanded regardless of ultimate merits.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

other

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles